Andrew Sullivan nominated Lew Rockwell for his "far right" "Malkin Award".
A reader objects that Rockwell is not "far right". Sullivan's mind can't even deal with it. He responds:
"And if Lew Rockwell isn't on the far right, then is my reader saying he's on the far left?"
This is remarkable. It is rather like if some poor fellow raised in Plato's cave has had drilled into his head an artificial spectrum for collections of opinions based on any other arbitrarily chosen pair of irrelevant opposites. Let us say one jumble of opinions they label "sweet", and all the rest they label "savory". The cave denizen accuses someone with a strong set of opinions of being "too sweet". Someone from outside the cave objects that that doesn't describe the person's opinions. So the cave denizen, bewildered, exclaims, "What, then, he's too savory? Ridiculous!"
I guess it just depends on Sullivans political spectrum and where he puts anarchists. I put anarchists on the far right (no government). Certainly, according to my spectrum, they are NOT far left (total government).
Lyle: I guess it just depends on Sullivans political spectrum and where he puts anarchists. I put anarchists on the far right (no government). Certainly, according to my spectrum, they are NOT far left (total government).
What point is there tossing back and forth our rival pet artificial spectra? Would it not be better to just stop talking with such obscurity altogether?!
I mean really, Lyle, it's like you're just coming in from a different cave and saying, "No actually he really is extremely savory, and I like it!"
I don't know if libertarianism has ever been in such a high profile position before to actually rattle the mainstreamers' and their politics so much and so often. I don't mean this article in particular, but the past few years in general.
Even if you can read some sort of objective meaning into the left-right 'spectrum' (how much you like Karl Marx?), we're still left with a situation whereby Lew Rockwell has been compared to someone who is pro-war, pro-concentration camp, and pro-security state.
I mean... Why doesn't LRC decide to give Ralph Nadar the Joseph Stalin award?
Who on Earth cares about 'left' and 'right' wing when issues like war and concentration camps don't even feature in the comparison? Shows you where Sullivan's priorities are.
"No one should be fooled. Any Republican representative or senator who votes to raise the debt ceiling is voting to continue business as usual, to expand warfare, welfare, foreign aid, bank bailouts, and all the other criminal enterprises. Forget talk of the Tea Party, fiscal conservatism, some face-saving agreement with the Democrats. It is a sell-out, a pledging of allegiance to the Pentagon-CIA-Fed-bank-Wall Street regime that runs this country. Shame,"
Not only that, the fool used a quote that was discouraging of warfare, Republicans, the CIA, the Pentagon, bailouts, and wall street. Honestly, I don't see how this quote is helping Andrew Sullivan look that good, unless the mainstream "left wing" really has turned that arrogant, jaded, and/or honest about things.
Lew is top-left:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/21364/382272.aspx
Couple this with comments like "...Austrian school that is sweeping the GOP" made by Paul Krugman and we might eventually be labeled the economics of republicans or some other right wing hacks
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Danny,
What I am saying is STEAL THE CRITICS THUNDER BY PLAYING ALONG. Think of Sullivan as Johnny Ringo and Rockwell a Doc Holliday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmdfD2byTuY&feature=related
In my cave, when people ask my clan why we eat that which is savory, we reply that we like it. When they mock us for eating what we like and not what we are told to eat, all we can do is laugh with (read: at) them.
I nominate that blue is very black. Euhm, what? He's not very black? So you mean he's very white? :o
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Reminds me of when I wrote a paper about legalizing drugs and my teacher replied this:
"Well if we should legalize drugs because people do them already, should we legalize murder too?"
10 pages I tell you and that was the only comment! Still got an A, though . . .
I think your teacher makes a good point: That something is already being done should not be the determining factor as to whether it should be allowed. If drugs are to be legalized, a better argument would be that drug use, unlike murder, it is not aggressive against other individuals.
^^I guess the point that I didn't get across was that I didn't write my paper on that idea. I wrote it about what you said mainly: it doesn't hurt anyone so people should have the right to make decisions about their own lives. I also wrote about how it's a lot worse to put criminals in charge of the drug trade and how the penalties drive up the cost and put addicts into poverty. It was 10 pages long so I made a lot of different points, he just pin-pointed a specific thing he didn't agree with: that the punishment was an ineffective deterrant.
Well if you wrote that the nature of doing drugs is different than that of committing murder and your teacher came back with a totally unrelated comment, then you are correct. The INANITY of your professor!!!
As far as Punishment, it sometimes fills one of three, all three, or none of the three roles: Restorative, Retributive, and Rehabilitative. IMO, the criminal justice system was originally set up to reduce the costs of leaving job and family to retrieve property stolen, to teach sympathy for victims by imposing similar offenses against offenders, and to deter repeat offenses. The "state" was seen as an insurance policy on life, liberty, and property. Taxes were premiums and/or deductibles.